Recycling For Fun And Profit: The Imminent Return Of The ‘Clinton Scandals’

Recycling For Fun And Profit: The Imminent Return Of The ‘Clinton Scandals’

Share

Hillary Clinton may well run for president in 2016. Or she may not. But while the nation awaits her decision, both jittery Republican politicians and titillated political journalists – often in concert – will seize upon any excuse to recycle those old “Clinton scandals.”

The latest trip around this endless loop began when Senator Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican of extremist pedigree and nebulous appeal, deflected a question about his party’s “war on women” by yapping about Monica Lewinsky, former “inappropriate” playmate of Bill Clinton. Then the Free Beacon, a right-wing Washington tabloid, published some old papers about the “ruthless” Hillary and the “loony-toon Monica” from the archives of the late Diane Blair, a longtime and intimate Arkansas friend of the Clintons.

What was truly bizarre in Senator Paul’s outburst was his suggestion that somehow Hillary Clinton is implicated in the Lewinsky affair (which he and others have wrongly characterized as “harassment” or victimization of the young White House intern). Most voters will consider that kind of insinuation more repulsive than persuasive.

Still, there were other long-running pseudo-scandals that featured Hillary. Are we doomed to revisit every crackpot allegation and conspiracy theory? Very likely so, if only because that brand of moonshine brought in wads and wads of money from the same credulous wingnuts who follow Fox News. Last week many of them surely sent money to Senator Paul or clicked on the Free Beacon.

The Clintons are still big box office in the mainstream media as well. Our historical amnesia will make the old charges against them sound new again. And if there’s a sucker born every minute, a lot of minutes have passed since they left the White House.

To prepare for the coming tsunami of bullbleep, a brief guide to past scandals may prove useful. Then when another lightweight politician or television personality starts spouting about Whitewater or Filegate or Travelgate – about which he or she actually knows approximately nothing – pertinent facts will be available. (For the longer version, with colorful narrative, consult The Hunting of the President.)

A highly experienced journalist, author and editor, Joe Conason is the editor-in-chief of The National Memo, founded in July 2011. He was formerly the executive editor of the New York Observer, where he wrote a popular political column for many years. His columns are distributed by Creators Syndicate and his reporting and writing have appeared in many publications around the world, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Yorker, The New Republic, TheNation, and Harpers.

Currently he is working on a new book about former President Bill Clinton's life and work since leaving the White House in 2001. He is a frequent guest on radio and television, including MSNBC's Morning Joe, and lives in New York City with his wife and two children.

113 Comments

It didn’t work before, and it is definitely not going to work this time. Contrary to popular opinion, most Americans differentiate between the private lives of our elected officials and their ability to get the job done…and Bill Clinton could not have done the latter any better than he did. Moreover, there is something inherently wrong in going after a woman betrayed by her husband, and if the GOP continue to pursue this tactic they are likely to lose more women vote than they already have.
I can’t believe there are still people who support a party whose only contributions are to to demonize opponents, lie, and never offer an alternative solution to the problems we are still facing.
Their problem is not only their dismal record at governance, but their inability to articulate a vision of America in the 21st century that we can all understand and consider.

Well, Dominick, there is ONE thing that Starr & the Republicans accomplished with all of their accusations. They changed my poor opinion of Bill Clinton to one of admiration and made me sorry that I had not voted for him the first time. I did vote for him when he ran for a second term and I, and I believe the majority of citizens, would have voted for him if he could have run for a third term.The Republican antics also convinced me that you do not have to be a blundering fool to run for office but it seems to be a prerequisite if you are a Republican.

I think that you’re engaging in wishful thinking when you assert that “…most Americans differentiate between the private lives of our elected officials and their ability to get the job done”. That would be nice, but in my experience, it just isn’t true. Where did you get the statistic that “most” Americans differentiate? You’re not just grabbing numbers out of thin air, are you?

I’ve been voting Democrat for the past several years because I think that many Republicans are out to deprive me of my Social Security and my Medicare. Because that is still a credible threat. I’ll probably vote for Hillary Clinton if she get the Democratic nomination in 2016, although I think that she’s a phony from the word “go” and is involved in the death of people like Vince Foster. I also think that her husband is a piece of garbage and that he exposed the United states to international ridicule when he was president.

What worries me about Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is that I think that it will give a boost to whoever runs on the Republican ticket. I don’t think that I’m alone is despising Hillary Clinton. She didn’t lose the nomination to Obama because she’s immensely popular.

In theory, I, myself, am qualified. But I’m not electable because only a few thousand people know who I am. And some of my friends disagree with me politically (not to mention a few relatives, as well). Besides, I don’t tolerate stupidity, and would mouth off in front of a camera too often.

But in the meantime, there are thousands upon thousands of GOP (and, for that matter, Dem) politicians for whom the White House would be a nice career jump. In the same vein, however, they’re not widely known. And not likely to be very schooled in all the facets of all the issues. The ideal in that regard might have been Clinton (Bill), who was a wonk of the first order.

For the Dems, Hillary is the most widely-known of viable, qualified, candidates — taking into account the realistic qualities I don’t have like a history with foreign policy, or basic knowledge of the law, or an existing working relationship with much of Washington, or, at the least, powerful political figures. Plus intelligence and education, speaking skills, and the like. If Hill doesn’t run, there’s always Elizabeth Warren. Perhaps Joe Biden, although he’d provide a lot of fodder for the clowns over at Fox.

For the GOP, there are a few who might be qualified. But they’re overshadowed by the loudmouth extremists (see “Ted Cruz.” Or “Sarah Palin.”) Or total idiots who haven’t got a shot outside of the Bible Belt. (See “Mike Huckabee.”) Unless and until the GOP gestates a few leaders who have the guts to stand up to extremists; who know how to work with the opposition, not against it; and articulate plans for the future rather than railing against their opponents — they will be relegated to the minority halls, and their loyalists are likely to become fewer and fewer as time marches on.

I think that she lost because people don’t like her. She doesn’t inspire trust or sympathy. Also, I don’t think that voters appreciated her crying during her race for the nomination. It created the suspicion that she’ll fold when the going gets tough.

I agree with you, Dominick. Like most Americans, I’m tired of rehashing old history. Yes, the House voted and passed articles of impeachment against President Clinton for perjury. However IMO, his lie about oral sex is child’s play next to “W’s” lies about going to war against Iraq. Should the Republicans actually decide to attack Hillary, they would be wise to remember that while the Clintons aren’t from Chicago or NJ, their approach to politics is. Unlike most Democrats, they will roll in the gutter and return punch for punch. Oh, and should anyone think I won’t vote for Hillary, they’re wrong. I’ll vote any Democrat running against the Republican hopefuls.

The reason I didn’t support Hillary in 2008 was the propensity for right wing prevaricators to dig up all these lies. I was sick of them and knew that we’d be subjected to Clinton derangement syndrome. They’re back.

“both jittery Republican politicians and titillated political journalists – often in concert – will seize upon the any excuse to recycle those old “Clinton scandals.”………The latest trip around this endless loop began when Senator Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican of extremist pedigree and nebulous appeal, deflected a question about his party’s “war on women” by yapping about Monica Lewinsky, former “inappropriate” playmate of Bill Clinton. Then the Free Beacon, a right-wing Washington tabloid, published some old papers about the “ruthless” Hillary and the “loony-toon Monica” from the archives of the late Diane Blair, a longtime and intimate Arkansas friend of the Clintons………..Suddenly the media frenzy of the Nineties resumed, as if there had never even been a pause.”

And what also is happening is that the extreme right wing websites, like Raw Story, and others frequented by the newbie troll. annieneol below, latch on to this “recycling old Clinton scandals” because these troll posters( national known commentators) simply have run out of original ideas.

Their collective delusion mindset backed by the GOP/Teaparty, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul etc, Fox Faux News, and big money Koch brothers simply cant get over the fact that the American people see through their delusions and lies and propaganda and voted Obama in TWICE…

Conason also correctly states:
“To prepare for the coming tsunami of bullbleep, a brief guide to past scandals may prove useful.

1) Whitewater: Kenneth Starr spent roughly millions of dollars trying to find evidence of chicanery in a land deal that lost money for the Clintons – and his probe ended updemonstrating their innocence, like several earlier investigations.

2)Travelgate: Feverish coverage of Hillary Clinton’s firing of several White House employees who handled press travel arrangements neglected some salient facts –such as the suspicious absence of accounting records for millions of dollars expended by the White House Travel Office, the Travel Office director’s offer to plead guilty to embezzlement, and evidence that he had accepted lavish gifts from an air charter company. T

3) Filegate: Sensational accusations that Hillary Clinton had ordered up FBI background files to target political opponents soon became a Republican and media obsession,……Starr investigated the matter and found no evidence of wrongdoing. Finally, in 2010, a Reagan-appointed federal judge mockingly dismissed a civil lawsuit based on the allegations, saying “there’s no there there.”

So here we are in 2014 with the “same ole-same-ole” right wing crazies Bullbleep….

And we have a fresh round of utter nonsense to put up with from the trolls who post at National Memo.

Remember with the trolls: NEVER respond or reply….vote them down, and flag for NM moderators to keep an eye on what they are posting…

Rand Paul at least tells the truth. How else could MR Paul phrased it .It happened with more than was reported. I think William Jefferson Clinton. Was one of the best Presidents we have had in the 20th century. And by far better than any President since he left office, Bill Clinton makes Bush and Obama look like IDIOTS. I do not believe Hillary has Bill’s abilities to govern. I believe she is like Obama by being to ridged .Stepping through the law and Constitution rather than abide by it. I am probably the only Republican who thinks Regan was a bad President. The Iran Contra seems to have slid under a cliff in outter space. Reagan was better than W Bush and Obama.

Daniel: I respect you completely, but I think you were a little hard on JD. After all, he does have the right to make a comment (true as it was) on this site no matter the length. That’s what makes this site so great. I don’t believe JD is a rightwing bully.

Thank you…..I know some of the posters here are RW trolls, but sometimes one of them says something that might be meaningful (occasionally it DOES happen). I usually don’t respond to them as you suggested, but I think JD was just voicing an opinion, short as it was. Actually, I think it would make a GREAT bumper sticker!!! LOL

Oarboar—please ignore the troll….Trolls exist for the spotlight. Often ignoring them will either make them simply go away or they’ll say even more ridiculous things making them look foolish and desperate.
If you feel you HAVE to respond, wait at least an hour. Decide if you really have to take action at all.
Be nice. Anger only encourages response. Something very short and to the point like “thank you for your point of view”. is enough. ……A social media troll as someone who seeks to lure or bait people into negative, disruptive rhetoric for their own edification or to commandeer an otherwise free-flowing discussion among colleagues. They don’t recognize anyone that may be interested in discussing something that bores them and opt to criticize or yell “boring” instead of engaging in the discussion. They choose to belittle those who seek the information and discourse as well as those who try to provide it. They simply have no interest in anything that is not self-serving.

Hey, this will give Fox News at least a couple of months of rumor and innuendo for their talking head shows! It will continue to show that Fox has an unreasonable hatred of all things Clintonian and allow her to play the victim card at the same time!

I think there is enough proof positive things that Hillary was involved with. That can be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. To keep her from ever getting elected.Hillary is no dummy, But she is light years behind Bill Clinton the Politician. I think Hilly will step aside rather than dragging her daughter through this very long campaign.

But, of course, you didn’t cite a single example of such “proof positive,” obviously because you have nothing that would stand up to analysis by anyone but the blind zealots on right-wing websites and Faux News.

The Clinton’s have enough skeletons in their closet’s .To fill every Walmart warehouse in the world. When you are in politics it becomes your private life. There will be 10s of millions of people voting in 2016. Who were not born or old enough to remember. Every night for 8 years we had to watch as one woman after another claims to have had sex with him. This was no fun after working hard to make ends meet. And almost every night we had to watch Hillary’s scandals unfold. Watergate, The Rose law firm, The failed savings and loan that went bankrupt. The death of Foster who was said to have had an affair with Hillary. There are a lot of people here in Arkansas who know enough to bring the house down.

“There are a lot of people here in Arkansas who know enough to bring the house down.”

Huh. And they haven’t done so. Remarkable.

You know what, Chuck? Those tens of millions of people aren’t going to give a single pea-sized shit about stuff that happened when they were either spitting up baby food or watching Nickelodeon. They’ve got issues of here and now to deal with. They’re out on their own and paying the bills, or looking at a job market crippled by the stupidity of austerity. Hillary may not have all the solutions to those problems, or even half the solutions, but that’s still far more than the zero the Republicans are racking up.

But hey, keep !@#$ing that chicken. It’s worked so brilliantly before, hasn’t it?

Please—ignore the troll Charles L Smith….A social media troll as someone who seeks to lure or bait people into negative, disruptive rhetoric for their own edification or to commandeer an otherwise free-flowing discussion among colleagues. They don’t recognize anyone that may be interested in discussing something that bores them and opt to criticize or yell “boring” instead of engaging in the discussion. They choose to belittle those who seek the information and discourse as well as those who try to provide it. They simply have no interest in anything that is not self-serving.

VOte him down, flag for moderators to keep an eye on his posts in future.

Sadly, it isn’t just Republicans who cynically use the supposed sliminess of ‘the Clintons’ for political gain.

David Axelrod and Scott Plouff we all too happy to gin up the same nonsense six years ago.

Obama and his team always had more affinity for George Bush than for Bill and Hillary Clinton –though that hasn’t stopped the President from routinely turning to both whenever he’s needed their help, and they’ve always very graciously agreed to do so.

Week in and week out, the same airy, ill-defined “the Clintons have scandal all around them” allegation was a routine part of both men’s Sunday morning patter.

It went on to became a regular part of the conversation whenever Mr. Obama’s supporters were explaining their dislike for Ms. Clinton –with exactly the same fact-free, fearmongering ‘scandal’ analysis typical of the Foxbots for the last 20 years.

I was a Clinton delegate to my state’s Democratic convention in 2008 –a state that went big for Obama –and there’s no question that there was more hatred and rage thrown at my tiny group than there was toward Bush/Cheney. (And this was AFTER Obama had clinched the nomination.)

Don’t you remember Mr. Obama’s very chummy White House visit with Mr. Bush? It was in all the papers for a news cycle –and intended to dispel fears that Mr. Obama was some kind of radical. Meanwhile there was no attempt to hide his personal loathing for Bill and Hillary Clinton, something that was also widely covered.

I’m surprised you don’t seem to remember any of this.

I fully expect people to downvote this and my previous comment, because thy don’t want to admit that things were anything but lovey-dovey, but it’s the truth.

The primary season messaging of the 2008 Obama campaign was an anti-Clinton one, not an anti-Bush one. Thus the Obama campaign played an essential role in perpetuating the ongoing smearing of Ms Clinton.

That is a great reply! I see your point now, and it is good to be reminded of those early Hillary days..

“Don’t you remember Mr. Obama’s very chummy White House visit with Mr. Bush? It was in all the papers for a news cycle –and intended to dispel
fears that Mr. Obama was some kind of radical. Meanwhile there was no attempt to hide his personal loathing for Bill and Hillary Clinton,
something that was also widely covered.”

I remember now!….he did move to the center very fast indeed….and now—In retrospect…Obama does seem like a left of center moderate republican in narrowly define ways….particularly use of military, NSA etc…

Back in the 2 years leading up to Obama getting the nomination, I did not like the charismatic “charm” of the “Cheshire Cat Grin of Obama….I wanted Hillary for her tested experience dealing with the GOP…….

But Obama’s ability to inspire with words after he defeated Hillary made me support him anyway…There was no other alternative…

I remember the same thing you’re describing….I used to listen to a lot of progressive talk radio back in the day. Many supporters of other candidates including myself thought it was too soon for Obama but he was running on an anti-establishment message. Hillary Clinton was viewed as an establishment politician, it was easy to attack her since she was the most well known.

Someone born when the Lewinsky scandal broke will become old enough to vote at the height of 2016’s primary season. Maybe the GOP could set up a GeoCities page complete with sparkles and rotating headlines.

It just all says more about the GOP than anything about the Clintons, and what it says is that the GOP doesn’t have squat to run on. Please proceed, Republicans.

Is it a sign of utter loss of sight of the real purpose of life that lead us to over and over recite the same visceral hatred of personalities in private and in public?
Are we frozen in our tracks from moving forward? There are those of us who seem to take joy in rehashing what Bill Clinton did ages ago as though it just happened yesterday.

In a morbid way, saying anything negative about the former President, his wife, and daughter, seems to energize such people. None of the Presidents, despite their faults, or any other personalities, should have to suffer such insults.

What a supreme case of ennui that we as a society must be suffering from to have to get our jollies from dragging others through the mud ad infinitum.

This is what happens when individuals continue to imbibe “old wine from an old wineskin”. If we insist on carrying a personality like unto an old wineskin, then ‘new wine’ can never be poured into it, to borrow a Biblical metaphor.
This metaphor and its inner meaning seems to have been lost on the flock.

As I read about the Muslim community of Sohar in Oman, its so refreshing to see what a refined sense of patience, propriety, and courtesy they possess and display.

Just a reminder to all..I want to point out that National Memo moderators have correctly decided to protect us from posts that are simply inappropriate. The dozens of comments deleted throughout the entire National Memo site is a testiment to NM journalistic integrity…

Commentary is to be thoughtful and meant to move the discussion of this article forward and on topic.

Simply vote the trolls down and flag.
Never respond…that is what feeds him or her or whoever.

I don’t care if Mr. Smith is a communist. He has a right to his opinion. I disagree with almost everything he says. You are as dogmatic as he is albeit on the other side. Talk about self serving. By the way, I agree with him when it come to Hillary. I guess in your opinion that makes me a troll. Bring it.

You missed my point…He has a priviledge to post opinions here, it is not his right…It is the manner in which we have a civil discourse here at NM that is the point.

National Memo moderators have correctly decided to protect us from posts that are simply inappropriate, off topic, bullying, belittling and full of right wing propaganda disguised as truth…that is meant to disrupt construtive dialogue.

I am all for a hearty “give and take” pro & con discussion….and my 5 year history at National Memo will attest to that.

So Patrick…can you bring us back to the article topic and tell us what your view is about the article topic of :

Recycling For Fun And Profit: The Imminent Return Of The ‘Clinton Scandals’

Here is my response to Conasons article earlier in case you missed it…

Joe correctly observes:

“both jittery Republican politicians and titillated political
journalists – often in concert – will seize upon the any excuse to
recycle those old “Clinton scandals.”………The latest trip around
this endless loop began when Senator Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican
of extremist pedigree and nebulous appeal, deflected a question about
his party’s “war on women” by yapping about Monica Lewinsky, former
“inappropriate” playmate of Bill Clinton. Then the Free Beacon, a
right-wing Washington tabloid, published some old papers about the
“ruthless” Hillary and the “loony-toon Monica” from the archives of the
late Diane Blair, a longtime and intimate Arkansas friend of the
Clintons………..Suddenly the media frenzy of the Nineties resumed, as
if there had never even been a pause.”

And what also is happening is that the extreme right wing websites,
like Raw Story, and others frequented by the newbie troll. annieneol
below, latch on to this “recycling old Clinton scandals” because
these troll posters( national known commentators) simply have run out of
original ideas.

Their collective delusion mindset backed by the GOP/Teaparty, Paul
Ryan, Rand Paul etc, Fox Faux News, and big money Koch brothers simply
cant get over the fact that the American people see through their
delusions and lies and propaganda and voted Obama in TWICE…

Conason also correctly states:
“To prepare for the coming tsunami of bullbleep, a brief guide to past scandals may prove useful.

1) Whitewater: Kenneth Starr spent roughly millions of dollars
trying to find evidence of chicanery in a land deal that lost money for
the Clintons – and his probe ended updemonstrating their innocence, like
several earlier investigations.

2)Travelgate: Feverish coverage of Hillary Clinton’s firing of
several White House employees who handled press travel arrangements
neglected some salient facts –such as the suspicious absence of
accounting records for millions of dollars expended by the White House
Travel Office, the Travel Office director’s offer to plead guilty to
embezzlement, and evidence that he had accepted lavish gifts from an air
charter company. T

3) Filegate: Sensational accusations that Hillary Clinton had ordered
up FBI background files to target political opponents soon became a
Republican and media obsession,……Starr investigated the matter and
found no evidence of wrongdoing. Finally, in 2010, a Reagan-appointed
federal judge mockingly dismissed a civil lawsuit based on the
allegations, saying “there’s no there there.”

So here we are in 2014 with the “same ole-same-ole” right wing crazies Bullbleep….

And we have a fresh round of utter nonsense to put up with from the newbie trolls who are now posting at National Memo.

Remember with the trolls: NEVER respond or reply….vote them
down, and flag for NM moderators to keep an eye on what they are
posting…

Well, lets start with the fact that these scandals are not an imminent return, they never went away and are part of the history of the Clintons. To me, the scandals are fair game for the Republicans just as they would be for the Democrats. Whether this changes any minds remains to be seen. I lived through all of this so I don’t need any help to remember. I think the Clintons along with most politicians and famous political families out live their usefulness. The fact that their own history follows them around is a good thing and if the voters don’t like what they read, they can vote accordingly.

@patrick: The biggest problem is that none of the “scandals” of which you speak ever truly achieved the status of “scandal” (except in the mind of the extreme right wing). The closest it came was Bill’s dalliance with Monica. Like that hasn’t ever happened before in a CEO’s office. Heh!

Yes — Bill lied about his relationship with Monica. I have a really good question. Why, oh why, was it given such play to begin with? Why, oh why, did someone find it necessary to hang him on this. Were his actions “holy”? Heck, no. Was it anyone’s business? Heck, no. The entire affair was, and should have remained, business among Bill, Hillary, Monica, and their “confessors” (religious; psychologists and/or counselors; and the like). It really wasn’t anyone else’s business from the start. Ditto for Gennifer Flowers. (No. I don’t mean that she was any business of Monica.)

I understand your point here. It is none of our business. When he lied to the American people, it became our business. I remember billy pointing his finger at the camera. Still makes me laugh. I should probably look past this because they all lie. I don’t want the guy in the white house. Maybe Hillary could rent him a nice apartment near by and stock it with young ladies. I’m sorry, I couldn’t help myself.

I’m not a Hillary fan for political reasons: she’s just another moderate conservative, perhaps to the right of Obama, but Mr. Smith and a lot of other people, apparently including you, harbor an irrational hatred of her. Can you cite a single real reason for your dislike?

I don’t hate her. Although I don’t like the way she handled herself when answering questions about Benghazi and didn’t like the way she handled her husband when he lied to the country. The most important observation for me was when she was Sec. of State she was exhausted and almost or maybe did have an emotional nervous breakdown. I just don’t think she is physically up for the task. Don’t forget she would have to go through a very vigorous, ugly campaign to even get there.
I would love to see a woman president and hope someone can persuade Warren to give it a shot. I for one think Warren could win.
I wish the Clintons would go home.

If you remember correctly, Hillary disappeared after leaving Sec. of State and reports stated she was exhausted. That is the basis for my claim. I didn’t say she had a nervous breakdown but I think it was a fair assumption. Do you know that she didn’t? If so, enlighten me.

She was by far the most traveled Secretary of State in U.S. history and had kept up an amazing travel pace for months. She was hospitalized for severe dehydration and exhaustion; not to mention the trauma she must have felt from the whole GOP scandalization of the Benghazi attack. To suggest that her need to wind down from all that has something to do with an emotional nervous breakdown is stretching things a bit too far.

You have to be kidding. This is exactly what causes nervous breakdowns. I’m not suggesting. I’m saying that is the reason. Everything you mentioned. Winding down is taking a few days off and getting some rest and usually you don’t have to be hospitalized. I’m not saying she is not capable. She did a good job. I just think we can do better.

I’m not kidding in the least. You obviously have no comprehension of what a ‘nervous breakdown’ entails; it is not something that one gets over in 2 weeks to a month. My wife went through one 50 years ago and we spent close to a year living with my inlaws who took care of our 4 daughters because she was totally unable to while my wife suffered through bi-weekly episodes of shock treatments to get her out of the breakdown.
For you to suggest that Hilary suffered such a thing not only misdiagnosis what a nervous breakdwon really is, it does not only a disservice to Hilary but also to those who have actually been unfortunate enough to go through one.
And if you don’t think there is someone better than Hilary for the job of President, let’s hear who you have in mind; keeping Elizabeth Warren out of the list who we cannot afford to lose out of the Senate. She and the two Independents in the Senate are the only really rational voices we have there outside of the GOP camp.

Yes. Hillary stated she was exhausted. I don’t know in what sort of whirlwind she’d just partaken, so I don’t judge.

“…(she) almost or maybe did have an emotional nervous breakdown.”
You’re right. You didn’t say that she did. But you strongly implied it, based on your words. I’m sure you have the credentials to make this diagnosis.

From what I saw – I seldom watch much of GOP witch hunts – Clinton reacted the way her inquisitors deserved: irritated at people trying to make hay out of deaths.
I was a huge fan of Bill; compared to the alternatives. DOMA, NAFTA, Welfare “reform” didn’t sit so well. A lot of people seem thrilled with Hillary, but I just don’t she has the beliefs to put the brakes on hard enough to much slow our descent into the pit.
I like Elizabeth Warren a lot, but I have to wonder if the Dems in the Senate would support her, which she would need with continued GOP obstruction guaranteed. Look at how they’ve allowed themselves to be intimidated and essentially ruled by the minority for the last five years!

Well said and I agree. If the Dems were going to support her I think we would know it by now. They still have Hillary so they haven’t had to push Warren yet. You are correct though. If a person didn’t know the numbers, you would think the GOP was in charge.

What your missing is the simple fact that a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill. Judging by your comments, you would like that. I don’t. I wish she would have been tough enough to tell billy to take a hike after his little romp in the white house. I guess instead she just said “what difference does it make” and more or less made Billy the victim. Isn’t that charming. I must admit it didn’t seem to make any difference to you and many others.

Truly be in trouble as opposed to somewhat in trouble. that’s kind of simple. Fewer people get married these days. Slick willie and Hillary belong together but I would be surprised if love had much to do with it. There seems to be a lot of contracts these days when people get married. Pre- nups, just in case. Just my opinion.

The saddest part of this whole thing is that there are so many intellectually lazy Americans who allow this crap to influence their vote. Unwilling to educate themselves on issues that truly matter, they select who to vote against based upon gossip. The next time someone says to you, “why do the politicians go negative in their campaign messages?”, simply answer, “because it works.”

Every person who seeks public office, or any public lifestyle for that matter, will be subjected to scrutiny, both justly and unjustly. Spin-meisters are indeed masters of the art of selective, out-of-context, one sided, biased, persuasive verbiage. It has always been so in political contests, and isn’t likely to go away. Of course this old stuff is going to resurface. What else does the opposition have?

Probably a bad strategy for the GOP. Hillary always seems to bounce back from these fake scandals more popular than ever. Travelgate, Monica, Rose Law Firm, Whitewater…didn’t matter. They just make her stronger. That woman eats scandals for breakfast. If conservatives keep this up, they’ll end up with Hillary as President and Bill on the Supreme Court as retribution.

All the talk of Hillary running for president does have a positive effect for the Democrats, especially if she doesn’t. It keeps the Republicans fixated on her
while the Democrats find a candidate or two that can take the Republicans by surprise. The big question is whether Hillary will in fact make a serious run or is she willing to act as a decoy and take one for the team! At this point, everything is speculative anyway.

I am not going to be following NM anymore because of a complete lack of consistent commentary standards. It is my understanding that NM has a few new editors, and that is the cause. They are allowing pop up work at home ads, flame throwing bullying trolls to run rampant…like some here…and at over a dozen other articles at NM…

The final straw as of Feb 23rd is allowing a bullying serial right wing troll to flame throw everywhere at NM and NM Editors refuse to shut this person down.
wjgreen314

I was completely sick of the endless coverage of that topic, and I was disgusted with the relish with which the Republicans pursued it. And then when I found out that the most vicious of the Republican accusers were in fact also adulterers, I was done with the entire topic. Bill Clinton is a brilliant man, as well as a consensus builder. He will be remembered as one of our best Presidents that did much more good for Americans than harm. I am a fan of Hillary, she is very accomplished on her own. I wish the press would pass on the opportunity to drag up this dead horse. Not only do the Clintons not deserve it, I think most of the public is sick and tired of hearing about it.

I say this as someone who was sick to death of this nonsense the first time–that the media is “recycling” all this clearly demonstrates their willingness to try and employ it again to keep us all divided.

Even if it doesn’t really work, media will simply commence pretending that it does, and that “there’s a deep divide in the country over this” when there is no such thing. That way, their narrative is set up and in place to allow for the “adjustments” of any real votes on Election Day. Think I’m kidding? Don’t. Their regularly-cooked polls will be shined up and trotted out to “support” this alleged “divide”.